This is the blog of the Commander-In-Chief (CINC) (Pronounced "sink") of the Falconist Party, a new political party founded in 2003 to combine the ideas of the right and the left to take America and the world not left, nor right, but up.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Annex Iraq and Afghanistan!!!!

"Have you lost your mind?" Would be the first reaction to our suggestion followed by the never ending accusations of "imperialism", "tyranny", "oppression" and comparisons to empires past may it be the Victorian British Empire, the brutal Nazi and Japanese Empires, or the fallen Roman Empire. Constitutionalists and other Americans would argue that the USA was born out of reaction to Empire, not to form an empire of its own. Before we take on these arguements, allow me to outline a strategy to win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Garrison Iraq and Afghanistan with a million GIs in each country

Dissolve the provisional governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and replace them with American Governors.

Turn the Iraqi and Afghan armies we are training and building into National Guard and police units.

Use every means at our disposal, including atomic weapons, to win the war.

Invade and occupy Iran and Pakistan if they interfere with our war against Islamic extremism.

Had we rebuilt our military to 20-30 million active duty personnel and deployed a million troops to Iraq as well as a million troops to Afghanistan, we may still have sustained 10,000 fatalities and have 80,000 wounded soldiers. However, the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan would be well underway and the Taliban, Al-Queda, the Afghan Warlords, and the Iraqi insurgents would all have been wiped out. For ever GI they kill, two would have taken his place and they would have killed ten enemy combatants each. We would have killed at least 100,000 Afghan and Iraqi insurgents. Maybe even a million enemy combatants. That would have been enough to make the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents cry "uncle" and give up.

Now people would ask why would we annex Iraq and Afghanistan? Why not just build modern democratic societies in these nations and just leave? I would ask what if the people of these nations vote the Taliban into power in Afghanistan and Al-Queda into power in Iraq? If we annex Iraq and Afghanistan and they eventually become states of the US, then they would be obligated to maintain republican forms of government. They would be forbidden by the U.S. Constitution to turn their societies into dictatorships. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan would be guranteed their rights under the U.S. Constitution and that their nations will remain federal democratic societies.

Another reason to annex Iraq and Afghanistan is that every $1 we invest in rebuilding them will be added to our GDP. We are going to build roads, bridges, freeways, railways, power plants, desalination plants, pipelines, aqueducts, educational facilities, health care facilities, sewer systems, public safety facilities, and other public buildings. We will put millions of Iraqis and Afghans to work rebuilding these territories to American levels. When their reconstruction is complete, Iraq and Afghanistan will have GDPs of $1 trillion each. That is $2 trillion added to America's GDP. That is $500 billion in tax revenue flowing into the coffers of the USG each year. Annexing and rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan will add to America's wealth and power, not draw from it.

People will argue that this policy smacks of imperialism. First of all, is that such a bad thing? Is the very nature of imperialism immoral or the things that come with it are immoral? Second of all, previous empires never sought to make full-fledge citizens of conquered peoples let alone be able to vote in imperial elections (if any were held). Iraq and Afghanistan may start out as American colonies. However, as soon as the people are ready, we will make Iraq and Afghanistan states of the USA with two Senators and a score of house seats for each territory. They will elect their own governors and state legislators.

People will argue that Iraq and Afghanistan are too geographically and culturally remote from the USA to become states of the union. We argue that Iraq and Afghanistan are no more culturally remote from the USA than Texas and no more geographically remote than Alaska or Hawaii. Moreover, what is the difference between having 50 million Iraqis and Afghans immigrating to the United States and annexing Iraq and Afghanistan other than that they would be brining their countries with them into our union.

People will argue that we would only be annexing Iraq for the oil. We don't need Iraq for the oil. We can meet our energy needs by refining gasoline from coal, increasing domestic production of oil and natural gas, and develop alternative sources of energy. Besides, if we are going to invade a nation for oil, we might as well invade Mexico and get some cheap labor along with Mexico's oil. This "war for oil" the left espouses in this country is sheer nonsense.

People are also afraid that if we annex Iraq and Afghanistan, we will be going down the same road as the British and Roman Empires. First of all, Rome is not famous for how it fell. Rome is famous for how it endured. Aincent Rome endured for 1,000 year and continued on as the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzatine Empire for another 1,000 years. The British Empire endured for 200 years after Britian established her first colony. If we did go down this road, we won't see the end of our empire for maybe until 2210 at the earliest and 4010 at the latest.

Besides, abstaining from empire is no guarantee the immortality of our federal democratic republic. The average republic lasted 200 years. France went through five republics and two empires ever since the monarchy was overthrown in the French revolution. Moreover, nobody is talking about abolishing our federal democratic instutitons in annexing Iraq and Afghanistan. We will still retain our constitutional federal democratic republic. We will continue to elect our POTUS, our Congress, and they in turn will appoint and confirm the justices of our SCOTUS. We will continue to posess elected governors and state lawmakers and elected municipal officials. The only thing that would change is that Iraq and Afghanistan will be ruled by American governors until their reconstruction would be complete and their peoples are ready to become citizens of the United States with the ability to participate in American federal elections.

As far as this policy being considered anti-American, our nation was born out of war and built by war. The War of 1812 gave us the Great Lakes. The Mexican War gave us half of the Mexican Empire. American's waged the Indian Wars in expanding our nation across the North American continent. The Spanish-American wars gave us the Phillipines, Hawaii, the West Indies, and Cuba. In the cold war, America ruled-by-proxy nations through Somozas, Batistas, Pinochets, Mubaraks, Marcoses and Shahs. America ruled the Phillipines for 50 years before granting the nation independence. America ruled Japan for five years after WW2.

Furthermore, look at our success stories, we ruled and rebuilt West Germany, Italy, South Korea, and Japan for a decade after WW2. Today, these nations are modern democracies with thriving economies. Had America formally annexed them eventually made them states, America would have doubled its GDP and population.

The question people ask is where should it stop? The United States of America should annex and rebuild all of North America to begin with. Canada we can admit into the union as 13 new states with no problems. Greenland could be purchased from Denmark or ask the island's parliament on whether or not Greenland would switch from Danish rule to joining the USA. Haiti is a real basketcase that demands American intervention. If Mexico can't control illegal immigration into the USA and continues to descend into chaos, then Mexico would have to be invaded, occupied, annexed and rebuilt. Cuba must be liberated and admitted into our union. The rest of the Central American and Caribbean nations, along with Guyana can be persuaded to join the USA and reap the benefits of belonging to the USA.

The USA must take out the regimes of all rogue states worldwide. The USA must liberate Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Burma, North Korea, Venezuela, Sudan, and China. The USA should not stop until all regimes engaged in terrorism, tyranny, and tracking of drugs and people in bondage are blasted out of existence.

The USA has the wealth, power, means, and obligation to build a better world for all people. The USA should emcompass at least one whole American continent. It would even be better if the USA ruled the Western Hemisphere from pole to pole. The whole world would prosper if the stars and stripes flown over every corner of the Earth.

Anyway to the actual post.Ya know the British Empire actually paid for your defense, while you had lower taxes and asked for more reprensentation than the average citizen had in England? Or that one of the primary motivations for independence was so that you could massacre the Indians and move further inland at a time when the British Empire was evolving some pretty extensive morals.(You can confirm all these historical positions I have made in historical statistics.)

I like the idea of properly funding and running wars (except the use of nuclear weapons), but your helter-skelter numbers of 1 million there, 1 million here blatantly betrays you as an armchair general with no idea of statistics.

Also, there's a difference between a moral, imperial path and invading every country you have a disagreement with.

It's not like American even went for a full draft in WW2, or like the American Republic wasn't based on the Roman Republic.

Kids these days just assume Rome was some evil giant... they were isolationist and expanded to protect their allies.